Contrast Tocqueville with Justices Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Blackmun wanted to create a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy because of the asserted "'moral fact' that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole." Justice Kennedy, writing for six justices, did invent that right, declaring that "At the heart of [constitutional] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Neither of these vaporings has the remotest basis in the actual Constitution and neither has any definable meaning other than that a common morality may not be sustained by law if a majority of justices prefer that each individual follow his own desires.

Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the Court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal.

God should punish those who kept this magnificent mind off our highest court. What a sad loss for our country when morons fell for Gregory Peck's diatribe against him during the nomination hearings! For those of you too young to remember this debacle, Peck was considered an expert on Constitutional law because he played the lawyer in the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird." Yes, that's how PATHETIC our Senate was. We'll see in the coming nomination battle if it's improved any, or whether Michael Moore will be called as an "expert witness" by our leftist enemies.

I was amazed at the time that a man like Bork would have so much love of country as to allow himself to be subjected to the idiotic inanities of the U.S. Senate. If I had been Judge Bork, I would have stood up and told 'em to take their court and put it where the sun don't shine. And Judge Bork is smart enough to tell them that in a way that they wouldn't understand for a couple of days.

With that kind of legal mind and training, Judge Bork could easily make 3x the money at any big-name law firm in the country.

The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document....

Consider just a few of the Court's accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses, and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted racial and gender discrimination at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals. Justice O'Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

Democratic senators' filibusters of the president's previous judicial nominees demonstrate liberals' determination to retain the court as their political weapon....

The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses, and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted racial and gender discrimination at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.

I notice that there is no reference to Kelo. Has anyone seen or read Mr. Bork speaking out against Kelo?

At the Constitutional Convention A slaveholder spoke and declared all slaveholders tyrants. He went on to say "As natons cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world ,so they must be in this; By inevitable chain of causes and effects ,Providence punishes national sins by national clamaties." (Aug.22,1787 George Mason) Affirmed on Jan.27,1788 by Luther Martin.Those who would deny we were established a Christian nation -can only neglect the facts. God's time is not our own. For history records that America was visited by a bloody Civil War over the very issue of the national sin of permitting the slave trade continue. (among other causes equaly relavent to that time )My point being we live in a nation that has chosen leaders who do not rule in fear of God--or man. And I suspect th etime is short for as Jesus taught every kigdom divided against itself is brought to desolation;every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." We have allowed a court erect a false wall of separation that has divided the political house erected by Dr.Franklin and his peers, and levening the whole loaf of American government-to extend even to divinding the nation. The article written is excellent the heartbreak is too few of my fellow Americans will ever read it--and fewer still will find it in themselves to act.

The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document....

Consider just a few of the Court's accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses, and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted racial and gender discrimination at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals. Justice O'Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

One of Ronald Reagan's biggest mistakes was to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor with his FIRST supreme court pick. Reagan should have nominated Bork with his first pick. I believe Bork would have most likely made it through confirmation during Reagan's "honeymoon" period. Instead, we got the second rater O'Conner and her increasingly doltish decisions.

Contrast Tocqueville with Justices Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Blackmun wanted to create a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy because of the asserted "'moral fact' that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole." Justice Kennedy, writing for six justices, did invent that right, declaring that "At the heart of [constitutional] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Neither of these vaporings has the remotest basis in the actual Constitution and neither has any definable meaning other than that a common morality may not be sustained by law if a majority of justices prefer that each individual follow his own desires.

The Constitution is not a document for individuals and their issues - it is a document that cements the American people as a whole; a judicial document that should be etched in granite, IMHO. It is not a plaything for special interests yet this court with a few exceptions, has used our Constitution for individual interpretations - to suit their agenda and that of special interests - in other words, the SCOTUS can be likened to militant Mullahs, it is political - not judicial. The unpopular Socialist left uses the courts to further their otherwise unobtainable socialist issues another reason President Bush is serving a second term, he was put there by Americans who abhor Socialism and recognize and can differentiate what is a socialist and what is a liberal .Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Waxman, Waters, S.J. Lee, Boxer, etc, along with some really stupid ones like Dick Durbin and Byrd some are openly socialistic others just follow the crowd. The Supreme Court must be brought back to the original intents which was to serve and preserve the Republic.

I didn't know that about Gregory Peck. What was an actor doing testifying at hearings to confirm a Supreme Court Justice? No wonder actors have such a highly overinflated idea of their worth and importance and grasp of political matters.

12
posted on 12/07/2008 5:28:02 AM PST
by mrsmel
(That one is not my president.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.